The domain name at issue is <minicardsusa.com>, registered with Register.com,
Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving
as Panelist in this proceeding.

Honorable Richard B. Wickersham, Judge (Ret.), as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on July 11, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 13, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <minicardsusa.com> domain name is
registered with Register.com, Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.Register.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, Inc. registration agreement and
has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Policy”).

On July 23, 2007, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of August 13, 2007 by which Respondent could
file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail,
post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration
as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@minicardsusa.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 13, 2007.

A timely Additional Submission from Complainant was received and
determined to be complete on August 17, 2007.

A timely Additional Submission from Respondent was received and
determined to be complete on August 22, 2007.

On August 22, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Richard B. Wickersham, Judge (Ret.), as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A.Complainant

I.INTRODUCTION

This Complaint is hereby submitted
for decision in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) on August 26, 1999 and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (ICANN
Policy), and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (ICANN
Rules), adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999 and approved by ICANN on October
24, 1999, and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Supplemental Rules (Supp.
Rules).

II.COMPLAINANT INFORMATION

Complainant:

Name:MinicardsVennootschap Onder Firma Amsterdam
(“Minicards”)

Address:Frans Halsstraat 39

1072 BL

Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

Complainant’s Representative:

Name:Deborah
J. Peckham, Esq.

Address:Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston
Gates Ellis LLP

State Street
Financial Center

One Lincoln Street

Boston, MA02111

The Complainant chooses to have
this dispute heard before a single-member
administrative panel.

III.RESPONDENT INFORMATION

According to the Whois database at
www.betterwhois.com, the registrar of <minicardsusa.com>is Register.com, and the registrant
of this domain name is Moscow Studio
c/o Tamer Malekames.Malekames is also
known as Tamer Malek.Information about how to contact the registrant is stated as follows:

Name:Moscow Studios c/o Tamer Malekames (“Malek”)

Address:AMERICOM.International. 941 ½ North 20 Street

Allentown,
PA18104

IV.DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

A.The following domain name is the subject of this
Complaint: <minicardsusa.com>
(the “Disputed Domain Name”)

This dispute is properly within the scope of
the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (the “Policy”) and the
Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.The Registrar’s Master Services Agreement,
pursuant to which the Disputed Domain Name was registered, incorporates the
ICANN Policy.True and
correct copies of the Master Services Agreement incorporating the ICANN
Policy and the ICANN.

In addition, in accordance with the
Policy, Paragraph 4(a), the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding because:

a.The
Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to a trademark
in which the Complainant has rights, namely, MINICARDS.

b.The
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to
profit from the Complainant’s goodwill.

c.The
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed
Domain Name.

Since at least as early as May
2000, Complainant has been using the inherently distinctive mark MINICARDS
("Minicards Mark") in connection with a variety of goods and
services, including for advertising and marketing of goods and services of
others in different cities worldwide through Complainant’s website, and by
other means ("Minicards Goods and Services").Through Complainant’s website, among other
things, customers can learn about Complainant’s goods and services and inquire
about advertising opportunities in different cities.

Complainant owns a number of valid
and subsisting registrations for the MINICARDS Mark used in connection with the
Minicards Goods and Services, including, but not limited to European Union
Community Trade Mark Registration No. 3,606,456 and Danish Trademark
Registration No. VR 2003 03126.Complainant also has a trademark in Russia
with the Russian Patent and Trademark Bureau under Registration No. 288,725.

Long prior to the Respondent's
registration of the Disputed Domain Name, Complainant adopted, and has
continuously used since that adoption, the inherently distinctive MINICARDS
Mark for the Minicards Goods and Services described above, in Europe
and in various other countries around the world.

Complainant has invested
substantial sums to advertise and promote the Minicards Goods and Services and
the MINICARDS Mark
all over the world.As a result of
Complainant’s marketing efforts, substantial sales, and the resulting success
of its Minicards Goods and Services, the MINICARDS Mark represents
extraordinarily valuable goodwill owned by Complainant.

Since at least as early as October
27, 2002, long prior to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name,
Complainant adopted, and has continuously used the <minicards.com> domain
name to market, promote and sell Minicards Goods and Services around the
world.Complainant’s website is and has
been accessible to users globally since 2002.

One of the means by which
Complainant promotes its MINICARDS Mark is through entering into agreements
with individuals in different specific geographical regions.Under Complainant’s standard agreement, an
independent contractor (“licensee”) is licensed to offer MINICARDS goods and
services for sale within an assigned territory.

Respondent’s Registration and Use of the Disputed Domain Name

1.Despite
Respondent’s prior relationship with Complainant and his or its direct
knowledge of Complainant’s rights, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain
Name on or about September 3, 2006.This
Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MINICARDS
Mark, being comprised of Complainant’s MINICARDS Mark and the three letters “USA,” which is
merely a geographic indicator.

2.The
Disputed Domain Name refers to a website in which there are advertising and
marketing media products and information that bear the same color scheme and
mark, and similar graphical and textual layout and contents as the Complainant’s
website.

3.On
March 29, 2007, Complainant sent Respondent a letter requesting that Malek,
among other things, cease and desist his infringing activities, and transfer
the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant.Malek has refused to comply with Complainant’s demands.

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that, by the time of the
complaint, it has rights in the mark to which the Respondent’s domain name is
either confusingly similar or identical.As of December 1, 2003 and July 25, 2005, well before the filing of this
complaint, the Complainant had registered the MINICARDS mark with the Danish
Patent and Trademark Office, the Russian Patent and Trademark Bureau and the
European Union Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (“OHIM”),
respectively.The Domain Name, <minicardsusa.com>, is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MINICARDS Mark.See
Kidman v. Zuccarini, D2000-1415 (WIPO Jan. 23, 2001) (a domain name is
confusingly similar to a mark “when the domain name includes the trademark, or
a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the
domain name”).

Under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Disputed Domain Name in question
must be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly
similar.Respondent has merely appended
“USA,” a geographic indicator, to the
MINICARDS mark to create the Disputed Domain Name.

On or about September 3, 2006, long
after the Minicards Mark and the <minicards.com> website were used,
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name, <minicardsusa.com>. This Disputed Domain Name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s MINICARDS Mark, being comprised of Complainant’s MINICARDS
Mark and the geographic indicator “USA.”Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is likely to
confuse Internet users as to the relationship between Malek and Complainant.

The Disputed Domain Name, <minicardsusa.com> is a
combination of Complainant’s MINICARDS mark and the geographic indicator “USA.”This combination results in a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s MINICARDS Mark and domain name, and leads
to the probability that Internet users will, mistakenly, believe that the web
site located at the Disputed Domain Name is a legitimate Minicards
website.See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Can., D2000-0150 (WIPO, May 2,
2000) (finding that the domain name <walmartcanada.com> was confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark, and that “persons dealing with, or even perusing
the website of, <walmartcanada.com > could easily conclude that the
registrant of the domain name was associated with the Wal-Mart operation in
Canada”); see also Inter-IKEA Systems
B.V. v. Hoon Huh, D2000-0438 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (holding that adding the
word "korea" to the mark “IKEA” does not prevent the domain name from
being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, and that “…internet
users would be confused into thinking that the domain name was associated with
the Respondent, and in particular with the business of the Respondent in
Korea”).

There is ample evidence of
Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the <minicardsusa.com> domain name.Complainant’s MINICARDS Mark is well-known
and distinctive.Long after
Complainant's adoption and use of the MINICARDS Mark, Respondent began making
unauthorized use of that mark by registering the Disputed Domain Name and
adopting Complainant’s identical mark, style and trade dress.Malek’s agreement with Complainant shows that
he had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MINICARDS Mark.In addition, because Complainant owns
trademark registrations that were registered prior to the Respondent’s
registration of the Disputed Domain Name, Malek and Respondent had at least
constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MINICARDS Mark prior to
registering the Disputed Domain Name.Respondent’s registration and use of <minicardsusa.com>, despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights
is evidence of bad faith.See Ticketmaster Corp. v. Spider Web Design,
Inc., D2000-1551 (WIPO Feb. 4, 2001) (“active or constructive knowledge of
complainant’s rights in trademarks is a factor supporting bad faith”).

The combination of (a) Respondent’s
actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights, (b) the
well-known nature of the MINICARDS Mark, and (c) the creation of a website
bearing the Disputed Domain Name that offers goods and services competitive to
those of Complainant with the intent to profit from customers mistaken belief
of affiliation between Respondent and Complainant, sufficiently evidences bad
faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name under ICANN Policy
Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Respondent has and continues to
engage in bad faith behavior in violation of trademark law.This type of conduct is exactly what the
Policy was designed to prevent, and Complainant asks the Administrative Panel
to halt these violations and transfer the offending Domain Name to Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent received a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding on July 23, 2007.Respondent chooses to have this dispute heard
before a single member administrative panel, the same as stated in
Complainant’s Complaint.

RESPONDENT INFORMATION

[a.]Name:Tamer
Malekames

[b.]Address:941 ½ North 20 Street

Allentown, PA18104

Complainant has apparently been
using the mark MINICARDS in several countries in Europe.However, Complainant does not offer its
services worldwide as claimed.Respondent concedes that under Paragraph 1(a)(i)
of the Policy it is not necessary to establish trademark or service mark rights
in every country in the world.Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Complainant has ever used the
mark MINICARDS or offered its services for sale in the United States,
at least prior to 2007.This is
supported by the list of countries and cities attached to the Complaint, which
does not include the United
States.Thus, Complainant never took steps to established any common law rights
whatsoever in the mark MINICARDS in the United States.

Furthermore, Complainant is not the
sole owner of the mark MINICARDS or domain names containing the word
“minicards” for use on or in connection with advertising related services.In addition to Complainant,
Respondent has identified numerous other apparently legitimate users or planned
users of the mark MINICARDS throughout the world by other than Respondent.Examples include Slovakia
(<minicards.sk>), Canada
(<minicards.ca>), and others marketing a similar concept.This is contrary to Complainant’s assertion
that it is the worldwide owner of rights in the mark MINICARDS.

On September 3, 2006, almost
fifteen months after Respondent filed its application for federal registration
of the mark MINICARDS in the PTO, and well after Respondent had received word
from the PTO that no previously registered or pending marks that in the opinion
of the U.S. Trademark Examiner would conflict with Respondent’s use of
MINICARDS in the United States, Respondent applied to register the disputed
domain name <minicardsusa.com>.Thus, only after Respondent in good faith
took the proper steps to ensure that no confusingly similar marks were already
in use in the United States
did Respondent apply to register the domain name <minicardsusa.com>.

In view of Respondent’s federal
trademark registration in the U.S.,
Respondent has valid rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name <minicardsusa.com>.Respondent has made a bona fideuse of the
mark under Policy 4(c)(i) by offering and providing
such services in the United
States.Proof of use of the mark was submitted to the PTO in December 2006,
prior to allowance of the mark to be registered, and many months prior to
notice of the present dispute was received.Any assertions that such use is not bona
fide, which use is the basis for Respondent’s claim of valid rights in the
domain name <minicardsusa.com>,
should be made in the PTO or in a court of law, not in the present Forum.

Complainant asserts that Respondent
lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the domain name <minicardsusa.com> because
Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to its website
that offers competing services to those of Complainant.Respondent, however, selected the
domain name <minicardsusa.com>
to make it clear that its business activities were confined to the United
States, where Complainant did not have any reputation, presence, or business
activities, with “USA” being used to distinguish its services from Complainant.Similarities in the color scheme of
Respondent’s website and Complainant’s website resulted from the past
partnership between the parties where concepts and ideas were freely shared and
adopted, and the parties worked together in good faith.

Respondent was at all times in
compliance with the terms of the partnership agreement and in fact the business
was growing rapidly.Complainant has
presented no evidence to support the February 24, 2004 termination date.In truth, rather than terminating the agreement
according to its terms, Complainant, in an effort to subversively acquire
Respondent’s rightful property, caused Respondent to essentially be kidnapped
by the Russian militia in June 2006, and to be detained and then forcibly
expelled from Russia.Respondent believes he was forcibly expelled
as a result of Complainant’s greed so that the business could be resold to a
Russian buyer for more profits.Respondent currently is in the process of gathering evidence and working
with the United States
and Russian governments as well as human rights organizations to initiate an
international criminal complaint against Complainant to regain such rightful
property from Complainant and/or to recover damages caused by Complainant’s
actions.It is Complainant, therefore,
that has acted in bad faith in initiating the present domain name Complaint,
while Respondent has at all times attempted to act in good faith in registering
and using the domain name <minicardsusa.com>.

In addition, the restriction on
Respondent’s ability to use any know-how includes no limits on the duration of
the restriction, or on the geographic scope of the restriction.Courts generally oppose restrictions that are
overly broad in scope and could prevent an employee or independent contractor from
earning a livelihood after employment has been terminated.Thus, such language is clearly
unenforceable.Furthermore, in view of
the manner in which the Agreement was “terminated,” whereby Respondent was
unlawfully detained by the Russian militia and expelled from the country and
prevented forever from making a living in his chosen field, the Agreement
referred to is void on its face.

To prevent Respondent from being
able to register and use a domain name associated with legitimate trademark or
service mark rights would be a restraint on Respondent’s ability to conduct
business, and would be counter to the purposes of the present domain name
dispute resolution system.In addition,
transferring the domain name to Complainant would also unfairly enable
Complainant profit from the sweat and brow efforts of Respondent to establish
its business enterprise in the United
States.

C. Additional Submissions

Additional Statements of Respondent and Complainant were timely
received and fully considered following Panel review.Said Statements did not influence Panel
Decision.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance
with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems
applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove
each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name
should be cancelled or transferred:

(1)the domain name registered by the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;

(2)the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)the domain name has been registered and is being
used in bad faith.

The Panel finds
that the <minicardsusa.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MINICARDS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the disputed domain name
combines Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of the geographic
identifier “USA” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”The Panel finds that neither of these
modifications to Complainant’s mark sufficiently distinguish the disputed
domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).See
JVC Ams. Corp. v. Macafee, CPR007 (CPR Nov. 10, 2000) (finding that the
domain name registered by the respondent, <jvc-america.com>, is
substantially similar to, and nearly identical to the complainant's JVC mark); see also InfoSpace, Inc. v. domains Asia
Ventures, FA 198909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Internet users
may believe that the website located at the <dogpileuk.com> domain name
is run by a United Kingdom
branch or affiliate of Complainant. . . . Consequently, the Panel finds that
the geographic identifier “uk”
does not significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s
mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also
Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc.,
D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level
domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal
significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . .
.").

Rights or Legitimate InterestsPolicy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The Panel is aware that once
Complainant makes a prima facie case
in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it
does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has
asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect
to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with
concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is
“uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under
certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the
respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the
burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or
legitimate interest does exist).

Complainant asserts that despite
its previous contractual agreement with Respondent for promotion of its goods
and services under its MINICARDS mark, Respondent has never been authorized to
use Complainant’s mark in any domain name.Complainant further argues that Respondent’s USPTO service mark
registration is invalid due to Complainant’s use of the mark.The Panel agrees, and finds that Respondent
is not commonly known by the <minicardsusa.com>
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support
the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the
assertion must be rejected); see also
RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001)
(interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a
showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to
registration of the domain name to prevail").

Complainant contends that
Respondent is using the <minicardsusa.com>
domain name to market goods and services in direct competition with
Complainant.The Panel agrees, and finds
that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet
users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for
Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK
mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”).

Registration and Use in Bad FaithPolicy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Panel finds that Respondent is
using the <minicardsusa.com>
domain name to create a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain
name and Complainant’s affiliation with it and the corresponding website to
market goods and services in direct competition with Complainant for
Respondent’s benefit.Such a use may be
deemed bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).See
Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name
resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the
complainant’s famous mark); see also G.D.
Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21,
2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the
confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial
website).

Respondent’s use of the <minicardsusa.com> domain name to
market goods and services in direct competition with those offered by
Complainant may be deemed to be a disruption of Complainant’s business, and
accordingly evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).See Instron Corp. v. Kaner,
FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate websites that compete
with Complainant’s business); see also S.
Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by
attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s
business).

Moreover, Complainant contends, and
Respondent admits, that Respondent previously had a contractual business
agreement with Complainant concerning use of the MINICARDS mark, prior to the
time in which Respondent registered the <minicardsusa.com>
domain name.The Panel thus finds that
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when registering the
disputed domain name, and find bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii).See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a
mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to
confuse."); see also Pfizer, Inc. v.
Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between
the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website
was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when
it registered the subject domain name”).

In its Additional Submission,
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on the website that
resolves from the <minicardsusa.com>
domain name does not sufficiently prevent confusion as to Complainant’s
affiliation with the disputed domain name and corresponding website.The Panel agrees, and finds that the
disclaimer does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).See AltaVista
Co. v. AltaVista, FA 95480 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 31, 2000) (finding
that since a disclaimer does not, and could not, accompany the domain name,
then the “domain name attracts the consumer’s initial interest and the consumer
is misdirected long before he/she has the opportunity to see the disclaimer”); see also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman,
D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that addition of a disclaimer, when the
domain name consists of the complainant’s well-known trademark, does not
counter the expectation of Internet users that the domain name is sponsored by
the complainant).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <minicardsusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.